Three surgeons named with high death rates

[LordRaven]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

[Dimples]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

[LordRaven]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

Great but will that alter their state of mind when everyone is laughing at their being "bottom of the league"?

[Dimples]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

Great but will that alter their state of mind when everyone is laughing at their being "bottom of the league"?

That is why this country's obsession with "league tables" is counterproductive. By their very nature, a league table ensures that someone will always be at the bottom of it.

[LordRaven]

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

Great but will that alter their state of mind when everyone is laughing at their being "bottom of the league"?

That is why this country's obsession with "league tables" is counterproductive. By their very nature, a league table ensures that someone will always be at the bottom of it.

My point entirely and something completely lost on that nanny state-loving buffoon Canny. Publishing this hands sensitive information to some who will use it for all the wrong reasons

Where will it end???

[Guest]

You are mad! Who on earth would want to be a surgeon when they are "bottom of the league"?

And you think that this is good for the NHS??

When all our top surgeons fly off to America to earn big bucks and be covered with very large insurance policies against mishaps who will you fly in to replace them??

I know you Labourites want to keep changing the face of Britain so I suppose you'll be happy with the less well trained sub-standard replacements we get

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

Great but will that alter their state of mind when everyone is laughing at their being "bottom of the league"?

That is why this country's obsession with "league tables" is counterproductive. By their very nature, a league table ensures that someone will always be at the bottom of it.

My point entirely and something completely lost on that nanny state-loving buffoon Canny. Publishing this hands sensitive information to some who will use it for all the wrong reasons

Where will it end???

the first instance of nanny state in the UK was in 1982 when motorists were allowed to sue councils for lack of pot hole repairs

[LordRaven]

Surgeons in this country are also covered by very large insurance policies.

Great but will that alter their state of mind when everyone is laughing at their being "bottom of the league"?

That is why this country's obsession with "league tables" is counterproductive. By their very nature, a league table ensures that someone will always be at the bottom of it.

My point entirely and something completely lost on that nanny state-loving buffoon Canny. Publishing this hands sensitive information to some who will use it for all the wrong reasons

Where will it end???

the first instance of nanny state in the UK was in 1982 when motorists were allowed to sue councils for lack of pot hole repairs

Given cars can go out of control and cause accidents hitting potholes that is a top hole idea!

[Cannydc]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

[LordRaven]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Too much heat again? Just like ebola thread? You really are fucked outside political threads aren't you?

I am all for these league tables--but not in the public domain you banana brain.

Let the NHS police itself ffs!!! Use some common sense man before we endure another brain drain from this farcical crap!

[Dimples]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

[Cannydc]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

[Dimples]

Yes, necessarily.

It's the standard way for these types of studies to be done. Without equal comparisons, the figures are utterly meaningless.

To deny this is flying in the face of reality.

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

It is not clearly indicated whether the deaths are attributable to surgical incompetence or poor post operative management or whether these patients were so sick or more than averagely susceptible to post-op complications than others. Surgery is not an exact science and the surgeon is not the only person involved in the care of any patient, so unless the deaths are found to be directly and irrevocably attributable to some error or omission on the part of the surgeon, the findings are meaningless. That is why qualitative analysis of the causes of the deaths is imperative.

Surgeons, as with all doctors are subject to yearly appraisal and revalidation every 5 years, which helps to ascertain if there are grounds for concern with individual performance. Also most hospitals analyse their own morbidity and mortality figures in order to establish where potential problems lie.

[LordRaven]

That's what I am saying - they are NOT equal comparisons. I do not believe these are examined on a case-by-case basis and that is the only way that a true picture can be obtained.

Patients are individuals and there is no way you can compare the outcomes when the starting positions can be so variable. Unless the findings were based upon looking at the same procedures carried out on otherwise "well" patients, there is nothing of value to be gained from this exercise.

If a surgeon has high post-operative morbidity rates, that requires to be examined in detail AND IN CONTEXT as it relates to his surgery, the additional factors such as patient co-morbidity and the hospital environment. That becomes as issue for the surgeon within his own surgical unit.

It should not be judged in comparison to different surgeons in different units as there are factors which cannot be replicated elsewhere.

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

It is not clearly indicated whether the deaths are attributable to surgical incompetence or poor post operative management or whether these patients were so sick or more than averagely susceptible to post-op complications than others. Surgery is not an exact science and the surgeon is not the only person involved in the care of any patient, so unless the deaths are found to be directly and irrevocably attributable to some error or omission on the part of the surgeon, the findings are meaningless. That is why qualitative analysis of the causes of the deaths is imperative.

Surgeons, as with all doctors are subject to yearly appraisal and revalidation every 5 years, which helps to ascertain if there are grounds for concern with individual performance. Also most hospitals analyse their own morbidity and mortality figures in order to establish where potential problems lie.

You're wasting your time, one can't educate pork Dimples and I am afraid Canny's mindset is controlled by the marxist leninist state control of everything brainwashing he has endured, including league tables for surgeons and he is actually too thick to even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this ridiculous policy.

It beggars belief! Patients with chronic disorders and at a high risk of succumbing under surgery will now be instrumental in blotting the copy book of many a fine surgeon who merely tries his/her best to save their lives??

You couldn't make it up! And only the braindead--who'd probably blame a surgeon for their condition--can see merit in this ridiculous policy.

Have league tables, fine. But let the NHS police the bloody things for common sense to prevail.

I suppose Canny and other morons will be sat applauding when the media commence condemnation stories with family statements about how some Surgeon killed their family member and how they are commencing litgation? The fact the patient was going to die anyway and surgery was last resort wont come into it.

Fannydc and his leftwing friends moan about lack of money for NHS but now want to set it up as an even Bigger Target for the Compo Culture pervasive in this country today??? Is he mad??

NHS pays out record £1.2bn claims

The NHS has paid out a record £1 billion in litigation claims in one year, it has emerged.

A surge in the number of claims made by NHS patients or their families led to the health service paying out £1.2 billion for its clinical negligence compensation bill between 2011 and 2012.

The payouts, which represent legal costs and compensation payouts, is a huge rise on the previous year when the bill was £863 million, the NHS Litigation Authority's (NHS LA) annual accounts show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... -7906079.h

QED "Cannydc and his kind will inadvertently destroy the NHS simply through being thick!

[Guest]

They are as equal comparisons as can be made, given certain restrictions in sample sizes of certain specialities where less surgeons are involved.

Honestly, what would be the point if no real comparisons could be made ?

Suggest you try a course on statistical analysis.

Take the nutter Raving with you, and please wipe the spittle off his chin while you're at it.

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

It is not clearly indicated whether the deaths are attributable to surgical incompetence or poor post operative management or whether these patients were so sick or more than averagely susceptible to post-op complications than others. Surgery is not an exact science and the surgeon is not the only person involved in the care of any patient, so unless the deaths are found to be directly and irrevocably attributable to some error or omission on the part of the surgeon, the findings are meaningless. That is why qualitative analysis of the causes of the deaths is imperative.

Surgeons, as with all doctors are subject to yearly appraisal and revalidation every 5 years, which helps to ascertain if there are grounds for concern with individual performance. Also most hospitals analyse their own morbidity and mortality figures in order to establish where potential problems lie.

You're wasting your time, one can't educate pork Dimples and I am afraid Canny's mindset is controlled by the marxist leninist state control of everything brainwashing he has endured, including league tables for surgeons and he is actually too thick to even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this ridiculous policy.

It beggars belief! Patients with chronic disorders and at a high risk of succumbing under surgery will now be instrumental in blotting the copy book of many a fine surgeon who merely tries his/her best to save their lives??

You couldn't make it up! And only the braindead--who'd probably blame a surgeon for their condition--can see merit in this ridiculous policy.

Have league tables, fine. But let the NHS police the bloody things for common sense to prevail.

I suppose Canny and other morons will be sat applauding when the media commence condemnation stories with family statements about how some Surgeon killed their family member and how they are commencing litgation? The fact the patient was going to die anyway and surgery was last resort wont come into it.

Fannydc and his leftwing friends moan about lack of money for NHS but now want to set it up as an even Bigger Target for the Compo Culture pervasive in this country today??? Is he mad??

NHS pays out record £1.2bn claims

The NHS has paid out a record £1 billion in litigation claims in one year, it has emerged.

A surge in the number of claims made by NHS patients or their families led to the health service paying out £1.2 billion for its clinical negligence compensation bill between 2011 and 2012.

The payouts, which represent legal costs and compensation payouts, is a huge rise on the previous year when the bill was £863 million, the NHS Litigation Authority's (NHS LA) annual accounts show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... -7906079.h

QED "Cannydc and his kind will inadvertently destroy the NHS simply through being thick!

The party you voted for really have ruined the NHS. Scum

[Big Fat Frosty]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing